September 15, 2014:
We’re big fans of the Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens, which is why it makes us so happy that Canon announced a sibling lens, the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM. That’s a 36mm equivalent focal length, in a super thin package for just $150. Assuming the optics live up to what we’ve seen on the 40mm, it’ll be a great, ultra light and portable prime lens for people who want something a bit more on the wide-angle side, and want something super svelte.

May 13, 2014:
Canon's new wide-angle 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 lens will set you back just $300 when it launches in June, and we're hoping its optics will make it a new budget option for those who want to shoot wide at a low price.

First, congratulations on buying a Canon DSLR — regardless of whether you picked up an old Rebel XSi on the cheap or have a shiny new 60D, you’re going to have an incredible time with your new machine. But how do you go about choosing the best lenses? Which ones are good value? Should you stick with Canon, or look at other brands, too? This guide will point you in the right direction for filling your camera bag with excellent glass that’s supremely affordable.

We’re focusing on lenses that work well with a crop sensor Canon camera. There are many lenses out there designed for full frame, but if you’ve just bought your first SLR and it’s a Canon, then I’m willing to bet you have an APS-C sensor inside it. If so, you’ll want lenses that are going to play nicely with that camera. If you have a full frame, you’re probably far enough into this game that you can do the necessary legwork yourself.

Without further ado, then, here’s the glass that you should go and buy.

The first lens you’ll want to grab is affordable, small and takes incredible images in low light. You can choose between two prime lenses: the 50mm f/1.8 (a steal at just $100) or the 50mm f/1.4 (which costs a fair bit more at $360) — or alternatively, something that’s a bit bigger, a bit more expensive, and does the job of many prime lenses: the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. Have you ever seen a picture where the background is really out of focus, making the subject really pop? That’s called “bokeh,” and the effect is obtained by using a large aperture. The prime lens is just about the cheapest way to achieve that. These three lenses also do an absolutely incredible job of taking photos in low light, which means you’ll be able to get great images of people at dusk, or indoors.

Of the two 50mm versions, the f/1.4 is undoubtedly a better lens, but if you’re just starting out and aren’t sure what you want out of a lens, the f/1.8 version is supremely affordable and worth getting as you feel your way around. Here’s what Popular Photography’s Stan Horaczek told me about the f/1.8:

“I think the 50 F/1.8 is also a great starting lens, but not for the normal reasons. First, it’s $100 and you can get it for less. And what it will do is give you an idea of whether you want to go wider, longer or stay with a 50 until you can afford the big boy F/1.2. If you hate it, you throw it on craigslist and take a $20 loss. If you like it, you keep it and eventually move up. If you’re just starting, it’s a great lens to experiment with.”

He does mention that it’s fragile, and tricky to focus manually — but for $100, it can find its way into just about any camera bag. As Roger Cicala of LensRentals.com said, “the 50mm f/1.8 is so cheap, though, it’s almost a no brainer.”

The f/1.4 costs 3 times as much as the f/1.8 but isn't quite 3 times the lens, but it lets in more light, focuses faster, and is quieter so if you're serious about photography, it's probably worth the extra money.

However, if you can afford the higher price, the f/1.4 is considered a great lens. CameraLabs compared the two: “Canon’s EF 50mm f1.4 USM is another ideal portrait lens for cropped bodies and a step up from the f1.8 model. The higher price gets you a brighter aperture, which at f1.4 can gather 16 times more light than the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens when zoomed-in. You also get USM focusing which is quicker and quieter than the f1.8 model, not to mention easier manual focusing and superior build quality. If you can afford it, it’s worth spending the extra.”

LensPlay’s editors are also fans of the faster, more expensive version: “It’s 2/3 stop faster then the EF 50/1.8 II, it has faster focusing, full-time manual focus, better build, a metal lens mount, a distance scale and better optics.” However, given the price difference, for someone just starting out, I think the f/1.8 is a better deal. It’s a great way to learn your way around the focal length, it’s dirt cheap and is sharp, fast and light.

By keeping insane sharpness and wide aperture, it can do the work of many primes.

As an alternative, Sigma recently came out with one lens that can do the job of many different primes, essentially giving you the flexibility of a low-level zoom, but with the huge aperture and incredible sharpness of a fixed prime lens. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 will set you back nearly $800. But while that’s perhaps a bit more money than you’d like to spend, it’s essentially takes the place of an 18mm prime, a 24mm prime, and a 35mm prime, all in one body. That’s a lot of lens. The initial crop of reviews has been super positive, too. LensTip was very impressed by the image quality, FStoppers was a fan of the sharpness, DigitalCameraReview said “It could, without hesitation, be the go-to lens for portrait and wedding photographers across the globe”, and Chris Gampat at the Phoblographer is a huge fan, noting it’s “Super sharp wide open”, and “Perhaps the absolute best concert photography lens that anyone can get their hands on.” He also says “It’s sharp, contrasty, has beautiful color that is true to life, focuses quickly, and stays compact due to its internal zooming and focusing design.”

There a couple of potential downsides, though. While DPReview was impressed by the lens’s sharpness, fast autofocus, and excellent optics, they found it had a lot of trouble autofocusing in dark and low contrast conditions. FStoppers likewise had some issues with their lens front focusing. SLRGear noted that they were told this was due to pre-production firmware, and that it should be better in market versions. But plenty of people haven’t had that problem, and Chris Gampat of the Phoblographer told me he saw none of that with his substantial testing. You can also tweak the AF parameters using Sigma’s special USB dock, which can be used to get the sharpest, most accurate images possible.

The other downside is that it’s quite a bit bigger than just using one normal prime lens, as those tend to be very compact. It’s smaller than, say, a 24-70mm lens, but if you’re used to prime lenses, this is much larger, and perhaps less suited to situations like street photography because of it. And $800 is a good price for what it is, but that’s still a fair whack of cash. But, as DxOMark puts it, “the Sigma is likely to be viewed as a disruptive innovation and genuinely means we no longer have to choose between the flexibility of a zoom over the imaging characteristics that were once only available with a prime.”

This won't zoom as close as many longzoom point and shoots, but 200mm at the long end is nothing to scoff at, especially on a APS-C sensor (effectively 320mm). Plus it's part of Canon's storied L-series so you know it's good glass.

The next piece you’ll want to add to your camera bag is probably a zoom lens of some sort — most likely the the Canon 70-200mm f/4L. Whether it’s grabbing an image of your kid out on the sports field or getting a great shot of the Statue of Liberty while on a boat tour, sometimes you just need a bit more zoom. If you’re used to shooting with a point-and-shoot, you may have been spoiled with a 20x zoom or something similar. While SLR lenses don’t tend to run that long, they make up for it in quality.

Cicala, the founder of LensRentals.com, told me that for most people he recommends picking the manufacturer’s 70-300mm lens, as they’re “they’re good image quality and useful range for a good price.” However, Canon users may want to opt for the 70-200mm instead, as you can get some incredible lenses for a frankly fantastic price. They’re not the cheapest lenses around, but they represent some of the best value.

Canon’s high quality line of lenses are identified by the L designation, and usually are a pleasant off-white color. They’re known for superior image quality and sharpness — and they retain their value extremely well. For the zoom, I’d recommend the Canon 70-200mm f/4L, which goes for around $675, or, if you have a bit more scratch, the 70-200mm f/4 L IS, which goes for $1,200. The latter is twice as expensive because it has image stabilization built in, which is certainly a nice addition for a long zoom.

So, why do we suggest the 70-200 L lenses over the much more affordable 70-300? For one, the maximum aperture of the L lenses stays at f/4 across the entire zoom range — which means you get more light in when fully zoomed, which means faster exposures. But mostly, it’s about image quality: The L lenses are all excellent, and will last you through hell and high water.

Dave Etchells of Imaging Resource highly recommends both lenses, saying “both versions of this lens are really excellent; it’s one of our favorite tele zooms, regardless of manufacturer. It’s bigger than a lens designed just for an APS-C image circle would be but it’s not ungainly, especially the non-IS version.” PopPhoto’s Stan Horaczek, on the other hand, leans towards the cheaper, non-IS version, saying “It’s an F/4 and doesn’t have IS, but it’s a good lens and it’s a focal range that you’ll be familiar with forever if you keep shooting DSLRs. That 70-200 range isn’t going anywhere. And … it’s an L lens so you won’t lose that much when you want to turn it around and move up.”

The ever contentious Ken Rockwell even agreed, and called the lens “ideal…for daytime sports,” and that it “retains the super-fast focusing and excellent image quality you do need.” The crew at Photozone praised it for “combining exceptional build quality with an excellent and very even optical performance throughout the range.” The opinion seems to be unanimous about the optical quality of this lens, although both of the preceding reviewers mentioned that some of the units were of lower quality than others. So try and make sure you’ve got a good one.

Both the 50mm and 70-200mm are must haves, but for your third lens you have some choices. These following three lenses are all really great, and each is a fantastic value. Pick whichever one sounds like something you’d like to try — or just go all out, and get the lot.

This lens is small, cheap, and sharp. A great combination that's all too rare among modern DSLR lenses. It's also got the new STM zoom motor which lets it take advantage of new hybrid AF systems in Canon's newer DSLRs.

The Canon 40mm EF f/2.8 may seem like a funny lens — after making such a big deal with the 50mm having an f/1.8 maximum aperture, why would you go with something so much slower? The trick with the 40mm is that it’s absolutely tiny. It’s less than an inch thick, and weighs less than 5 ounces — plus it’s just $200. It’s so small that you can just slap it on your camera, and wander around a neighborhood without worrying about the extra weight dragging you down. The lens isn’t going to get in the way, it’s not going to thwack into door frames when you’re not paying attention. Hell, you could just keep the lens in your pocket to have something extra to shoot with you whenever you want.

As Cicala put it: “It’s so small it’s literally pocketable, very, very sharp and amazingly priced for such a good lens. It’s not as wide an aperture as I would like, but it’s wide enough for most purposes.” Horaczek also recommended it for new buyers who snapped up a Canon Rebel T4i, saying, “I think it’s worth the step up to the 40mm F/2.8 pancake. Especially if you buy the T4i, because it’s an STM (stepper motor) lens and can take full advantage of the new hybrid AF system.”

It’s not without its faults. The new focusing system doesn’t work perfectly except on the new T4i, and it reportedly loses sharpness at smaller apertures. Jaron Schneider of FStoppers commented that the sharpness was consistent and “could be downright beautiful. At certain apertures, though, the other side of ‘could be’ rears its ugly head. I was shocked at how bad the images looked when I shot at anything past f/9. This lens has a very steep falloff in sharpness between f/9 and f/10. It is a little worse on the edges, but that same consistency that I was initially impressed with has carried through when the quality of the image worsened. By the time I got to f/16, I was seeing crummy, blurry, muddy crap. F/18 through f/22 are nigh unusable.”

Schneider’s criticism was not universally embraced, however. Other reviewers disagreed.

The lens is still very new on the scene, and some kinks are still being worked out: There were reports of autofocus problems, which Canon fixed via firmware update. Generally speaking, reviewers have been happy with the lens, as it’s a great combination of low price with good optics. As Bryan Carnathan of The-Digital-Picture put it: “I’m finding very little to not like about this tiny, inexpensive lens. It is not hard to justify this purchase. Keep a pancake in your pocket — even for use as a backup lens.”

One thing you’ll notice about the lenses we’ve recommended so far is just how narrow their field of view is. It’s pretty astonishing just how much of a scene we naturally take in with our own vision, and shooting through a 40mm or longer lens definitely cuts out much of that.

That’s why a wide angle lens is definitely worth looking into, especially Canon 10-18mm EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. If you’re shooting indoors at close quarters — like at a party or in a small room, a wide angle will get everything in the shot. If you’re at all into architectural or landscape photography, a wide angle is an absolute must for getting the feel of a large object. (Also, if you’re feeling a little underhanded, you can use a wide angle to make rooms look bigger when you’re listing your apartment on craigslist.)

Previously, we recommended the Tamron 10-24mm, but in 2014 Canon announced the 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6, which is $200 cheaper, is optically better, takes sharper images, and has a fantastic image stabilization system. It does lack the zoom at the long end of the Tamron, and has a more limited aperture range, but for the $200 savings we think the Canon is worth it.

SLRGear called the Canon lens ” is the best bang for you buck for this type of lens”. As they conclude “Extremely sharp with excellent AF performance, the $299 Canon 10-18mm is a steal. […]This compact lens is the perfect option for Canon Rebel users, or any other APS-C Canon photographer, in need of a high quality, ultra-portable, and ultra-affordable ultra wide-angle zoom.” Compared to our previous recommendation of the Tamron lens, SLRGear commented that the Tamron was a bit more flexible due to the longer focal length and wider aperture, but hampered y “rather lackluster performance in the sharpness category, particularly with corner sharpness, and even when stopped down. CA and vignetting are also rather high.”

The-Digital-Picture ranked it five stars, praising its optical qualities and low price, and not to mention the 2-3 stops of stabilization given by its IS system. They say it has “image quality and autofocus accuracy that competes very strongly with the currently available lenses in this class”, and said “The ultra-wide, ultra-light, ultra-small, ultra-affordable Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens will be a no-brainer choice for a large number of APS-C DSLR kits.”

Photozone gave it a rare “highly recommended”, saying it’s “every bit as good as the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM here … at half the price!” and concluding “when taking the generally high quality as well as the extraordinary low price point into account, we can only conclude … ‘highly recommended’!” The only major flaw they pointed out was that there was some vignetting and distortion at 10mm, but that disappeared when zooming.

With a widest aperture of 10mm (that’s the equivalent of 16mm in 35mm parlance), you’ll be able to grab a huge amount of a scene in a single image — but be careful not to get overwhelmed by the distortion.

The last lens I’m going to touch on is macro. Macro photography is an awful lot of fun; there’s nothing quite like getting really, really, disturbingly close to an insect to make you enjoy the art of photography. Canon makes a very affordable macro lens, the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, which goes for just $550. For almost double that, you can get an L version of the lens with image stabilization, but we’re trying to keep this guide on the affordable side.

The 100mm lens is fantastic for macro photography. Photozone said that, “optically the lens resides on a very high level with little to nothing to be desired.” Andrew Alexander’s review in SLRGear called it superb. “If you’re looking for a maximally sharp, high-quality lens in this focal length range, this is about as good as it gets. If you’re into macro photography this is a superb tool, with the added benefit of a comfortable working range, thanks to its 100mm focal length.”

As good as it is for macro, the 100mm is actually very versatile. The-Digital-Picture’s Bryan Carnathan said: “If you are looking for a great macro lens, the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens is a very good choice. It offers excellent optical performance and middle-of-the-road focal length, working distance and size/weight. Price makes this lens a great value. The 100mm focal length along with great bokeh (foreground/background blur quality) makes this a great portrait lens as well.”

But it has uses beyond macro and portrait photography. One Amazon reviewer used it for macro, short telephoto, astrophotography and daylight terrestrial photography. That’s a lot of different uses for one piece of glass. It might take a while to get used to shooting at a fairly long fixed focal length, but you can do a lot with it.

What to Look Forward to

Sigma announced the 50mm F1.4 DG HSM lens as the latest entry in their highly regarded “Art” line of full-frame premium lenses. The top-notch optic features a 13-element construction with a nine blade aperture design for pleasing bokeh (blur). Weighing in at just over a pound, this is a serious, pro-level lens, and it costs $950. If it performs anything like Sigma’s coveted 35mm F1.4 lens, this is going to make photographers very, very happy.

Canon announced its own ultra-affordable wide angle lens with the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. The $300 price tag makes it one of the most affordable wide-angle lenses on the market, even clocking in at less than many third-party options. Of course, a lot still rides on image quality, but with a price tag that low, it’s going to be an enticing offer for many new shooters.

We’re big fans of the Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens that we’ve discussed above, which is why it makes us so happy that Canon announced a sibling lens, the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM. That’s a 36mm equivalent focal length, in a super thin package for just $150. Assuming the optics live up to what we’ve seen on the 40mm, it’ll be a great, ultra light and portable prime lens for people who want something a bit more on the wide-angle side, and want something super svelte.

Wrapping it Up

There you have it, folks. Five lenses, each costing you somewhere between $100 and $700 (with a few pricier alternatives, if you’re willing to drop the cash.) Everyone should grab the super-affordable Canon 50mm f/1.8, and a nice long zoom like the Canon 70-200mm f/4L. After that, pick up the 40mm EF f/2.8 pancake lens for walking around, the Canon 10-18mm wide angle, or the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro lens for super-closeups. Any three would make a killer combination on a budget, and will put you on the road to some really interesting photography.

Sources

CameraLabs, Recommended Canon lenses for portrait, wedding and low-light photography. "Canon’s EF 50mm f1.4 USM is another ideal portrait lens for cropped bodies and a step-up from the f1.8 model above. The higher price gets you a brighter aperture which at f1.4 can gather 16 times more light than the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens when zoomed-in. You also get USM focusing which is quicker and quieter than the f1.8 model, not to mention easier manual focusing and superior build quality. If you can afford it, it’s worth spending the extra."

Bob Atkins, LensPlay, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. "A fast, sharp "normal" lens for EOS cameras. It's 2/3 stop faster then the EF 50/1.8 II, it has faster focusing, full time manual focus, better build, a metal lensmount, a distance scale and better optics. However the price is higher too! It will outperform the 50/1.8 at wide apertures, but stopped down there's not much difference. Note that though this is a USM lens with full time manual focus, the motor is a micro USM, not a ring USM."

Bob Atkins, LensPlay, Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II. "Despite the low cost construction, the optics are very good maing this clearly the sharpest lens for the buck in the Canon lineup. In addition to being sharp and inexpensive, it's also fast (f1.8), small and light. It's a bargain lens that should find a home in just about every photographer's camera bag. On an APS-C DSLR it makes an excellent portrait lens, being the equivalent of an 80mm lens on a full frame camera."

Ken Rockwell, KenRockwell.com, Canon 70-200mm f/4 (L, non-IS), December 06, 2006. "This is a high quality, fast focusing tele zoom. Get it if you want a budget price for a super quality optic and can survive without IS or f/2.8. This is an ideal lens for daytime sports because you don't need IS (Image Stabilization) or the f/2.8 speed of Canon's other 70-200mm lenses, and this one retains the super-fast focusing and excellent image quality you do need. Be certain that you get a good one. Mine appears to have been dropped or otherwise misaligned. Go on top of a mountain and make some shots at f/4. Each side needs to be as sharp as the others. If they differ, something isn't straight inside the lens."

Photozone.de, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L - Review / Test Report, "Highly Recommended". "The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L is a very harmonic package combining exceptional build quality with an excellent and very even optical performance throughout the range. Adding an EF 1.4x II only results is a slight loss of quality which is remarkable for such a slow speed zoom. And even better the price tag of this lens is amazingly low for what it offers ... or to be precise: what it can offer. Unfortunately the quality of the two tested samples varied quite a bit which is a little disappointing especially regarding the L designation. So if you can get a good one the EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L can be highly recommended!"

Jaron Schneider, FStoppers, Fstoppers Reviews the Canon 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Lens, July 12, 2012. "If you do have a T4i or are planning to get one, this might actually be an ok purchase. It’s not expensive, keeps the whole DSLR package small, and is lightweight. If you’re planning on doing some backpacking or travel, the T4i/40mm combo is a darn good alternative to a mirrorless camera. Since Canon does not yet have a mirrorless option, this is a good solution for those of you who don’t want two different sets of lenses cluttering up your home office. The T4i/pancake combo will be good for general-purpose landscape and street photography (the latter especially since it’s so small and inconspicuous). Just don’t plan to stop it down past f/9."

DPReview, Canon acknowledges autofocus glitch with EF 40mm F2.8 STM pancake lens, August 8, 2012. "Canon has acknowledged that a glitch in the recently released EF 40mm F2.8 STM pancake prime can cause autofocus to stop working. At present, if pressure is applied to the front of the lens when it's attached to the camera (which can include re-attaching the lens cap), the autofocus may stop working. The glitch can be overcome by dismounting and re-attaching the lens or by removing the camera's battery briefly. In its product advisory notice, the company says a firmware fix will be released in late August."

Bryan Carnathan, The-Digital-Picture, Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pancake Lens Review, August 09, 2012. "Overall, I’m finding very "little" to not like about this tiny, inexpensive lens. It is not hard to justify this purchase. Keep a pancake in your pocket - even for use as a backup lens."

Andy Westlake, DPReview, Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) review, "Recommended", February 2009. "So overall, this is a wide angle zoom which will give good results when used with a little care (i.e. not shot wide open), and which has much to like about it in terms of operation and results. With the broad zoom range and reasonable price, it's worthy of a place on the shortlist for anyone looking to buy an ultrawide DX zoom."

,

Photozone.de, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro - Review / Test Report, "Highly recommended". "The old EF 100mm f/2.8 macro lens had a superb reputation but Canon managed to keep up the performance of the USM successor despite of the introduction of a true IF design allowing to keep a constant lens length throughout the focus range. Mechanically this is a drastic improvement due to the absence of any moving outer parts that could suck in dust or wear out more easily. On top of that the USM implementation in this lens is excellent - compared to conventional macro lenses in this range it is a speed daemon here and a near silent one. Optically the lens resides on a very high level with little to nothing to be desired. HIGHLY recommended!"

Andrew Alexander, SLRGear, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (Tested), November 02, 2009. "I'll stick with Dave's original assessment of the lens to wrap this one up: Without a doubt, the Canon EF 100mm ƒ/2.8 Macro is a superb lens. It's in a good focal length range for use as a portrait lens, but you may actually want to knock its sharpness down a bit after the fact in Photoshop(tm) to be kinder to your subjects. It may not be for everyone, but if you're looking for a maximally sharp, high-quality lens in this focal length range, this is about as good as it gets. If you're into macro photography, this is a superb tool, with the added benefit of a comfortable working range, thanks to its 100mm focal length."

Bryan Carnathan, The-Digital-Picture, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens Review. "If you are looking for a great macro lens, the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens is a very good choice. It offers excellent optical performance and middle of the road focal length, working distance and size/weight. Price makes this lens a great value. The 100mm focal length along with great bokeh (foreground/background blur quality) makes this a great portrait lens as well."

Richard B. Williams "huge nerd", Amazon Customer Review, An extremely versatile lens., 5/5, January 7, 2005. "Tested in an astrophotography context (point sources on black backgrounds - excellent for revealing aberration and coma), I have found that this lens is reasonably sharp at f/4 and completely sharp by f/5.6. For daylight terrestrial photography, the tiny aberrations caused by the wide-open f/2.8 aperture are hardy noticeable and by f/4 the images are exquisitely sharp."

So is this lens a gimmick? No, it certainly isn’t. For Sigma’s first run at a previously never before seen lens concept, this is a rousing success. It may not be a home run, but it’s a solid line-drive double. There are thousands of photographers who will not only love the price point, but the return on that investment. The issues I experienced with the lens are from a very high level, high expectation standpoint. This is so far Sigma’s best APS-C only lens, and it’s the best by leaps and bounds.

I can easily see this lens being the best friend to many working professionals and a lot of enthusiasts, too. It could, without hesitation, be the go-to lens for portrait and wedding photographers across the globe. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is a rock star, no doubt!

We’ve got absolutely nothing but respect and love for the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC HSM. If you’re an APS-C DSLR user, this should be the lens that is a high priority item on your list to get. It’s sharp, contrasty, has beautiful color that is true to life, focuses quickly, and stays compact due to its internal zooming and focusing design.

Sigma has been on something of a roll recently, with lenses like the 35mm F1.4 offering excellent optics at a very competitive price, and it's clear from both technical tests and real world shooting that the 18-35mm F1.8 is following on in much the same vein. Its relatively narrow zoom range is undeniably a little restrictive, but on the other hand, the image quality it can offer over that range is absolutely stellar. It's let down a little by inconsistent autofocus, which makes it difficult to get consistently sharp results every time when shooting wide open. But if you're prepared to live with this, the 18-35mm is capable of delivering truly exceptional results.

The Sigma 18-35mm ƒ/1.8 DC HSM "A" lens packs a big punch in features and image quality without a big punch to the wallet. Shockingly sharp images at all apertures, even at ƒ/1.8, with excellent flatness of field and good control over chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting make this lens a no-brainer for users of APS-C cameras looking to upgrade from their kit lens. Furthermore, the lens has excellent built quality with smooth zoom and focus actuation and a nice, hefty heft to it that brings to mind the feel of high-end professional-level zoom lenses. With a super-fast constant ƒ/1.8 aperture that produces surprisingly great images, packaged with excellent build quality, and at the same time having a price that dramatically undercuts the competition, the new 18-35mm ƒ/1.8 DC HSM "A" is sure to become a top seller for Sigma. (As we said at the top, if you want one of these any time this year, you'd better get in line quick.)

Originally published: October 25, 2012

Anonymous

Don’t buy the 70-200mm. Don’t get me wrong, it’s awesome, well-built and sharp, but it’s very heavy and bulky-it makes anything you do with it a photography trip, not ‘bringing a camera along’.

The 55-250mm is a steal at the price (less than $200 if you look closely). You only lose one stop, and it comes with an image stabilizer. In low light it’s often the better lens because of that.

Anonymous

Other point: losing sharpness at smaller apertures isn’t a problem with the 40mm: it’s a fundamental law of physics that high f-number=lower sharpness. It’s true of any lens.

+1-the 50mm really showed me what you could do with wide-aperture photography, but if you want one lens on your camera 28mm is much more sensible. (It’s obviously much cheaper and easier to find used.) Key point here too: the 28mm is an easier lens to use in low light since it magnifies things less-blur from your hands trembling is much less visible. You can really see this.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=849372289 Sam Kass

My pick for a great versatile Canon lens for an APS-C camera is the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. It may not be the lens you pass on to your grandkids, but it’s probably the most versatile Canon lens out there and isn’t as unwieldy as the recommended 70-200. The best camera is the one you have with you, and I think a huge zoom on someone’s first SLR would mean the camera gets left at home. You can leave the 18-200 on the camera all the time… the only downside is making it harder to jump to prime lenses because you get too used to the versatility.

Elmboughs

Travel is the key word here, though. 18-200 is a great range for when you don’t know what you’re going to see, and think it might happen too fast for you to get a chance to change lenses.

And with automatic CA correction and modern sensors, the compromises you need to put up with cheap, slower lenses are much less annoying than they used to be. I’ve photographed for a company magazine, and I no longer feel I need to run photoshop noise reduction on every image I publish, even at ISO 1600/3200.

James Kanka

Agreed.

On the 5D mkII (full frame) I primarily use the 35mm 2.0 (1.4 would be nice) when taking pictures for myself. 35mm is the perfect focal length and because it’s so light I almost never bring along our 24-105mm… the pancake is tempting. The 70-200mm 2.8 is really nice for shooting interviews, but again — I have a full frame — full frame is a beautiful thing.

Tom

Shame such alternative was not avaliable to me when I bought my 70-200mm f4 is.
The f2.8 IS is one beast of a lens though, my 70-200 is already pretty heavy, not sure how I could live with something double the weight.

Concerned mother

My daughter is a self made photographer, she does weddings,outside pictures and photo shoots children and infants. So she does, wide shots and close shots, light and dark. What do you suggest she use for lenses. You see I buy her lenses and she is telling me she needs so many lenses costing well over $2000 to $3000 each. Is that necessary .

Anonymous

If your daughter is a professional photographer (and if she’s doing shots of wedding and children, it sounds like she is), then her needs are a bit different than this article, which is aimed more at new amateurs. While all of the lenses listed here are are good, for a professional — and one who plans to keep at photography as a full time job for the foreseeable future — there are advantages to buying some of the more expensive lenses. The higher end lenses (pretty much anything in Canon’s L line of pro lenses, with their distinctive white bodies) will generally speaking take sharper photos, have better stabilization, and a higher maximum aperture, making them more flexible for difficult lighting situations like weddings, where you’ll often only get one chance to get the right shot.

While it’s a substantial initial outlay to get lenses like this, the advantage is that not only are they often better than the more affordable ones, but in the long term you save money by buying the best now, rather than buying a decent lens now, and then upgrading to the best in a year or two. They also maintain value extremely well.

That’s not to say you can’t take good photos with this gear, but the more expensive stuff is just a bit more flexible.

However, at many thousands of dollars a pop, it might just be a bit much to ask (especially if you’re buying the lenses for her). You could always look to the second hand market for slightly cheaper options.

If she is a professional, then lenses should be treated as a business expense, as much as a handyman’s truck, or builder’s powertools. An expensive investment that should be taken into account when getting into the business, dealt with using proper accounting, and potentially paid for using a business loan.

If she is a professional, she should be buying her own lenses with the money she makes from her photography, not telling you that she “needs” these lenses that cost 2 or 3 grand. Give this girl some tough love and tell her to use the lenses she has and make the most of them. The lenses and camera are just tools, and “better” lenses do not make a better photographer. Invest $2 in a piggy bank for her instead, and tell her to study the countless tutorials online for wedding photography so she improves her craft instead.

Anonymous

I don’t agree with you at all. First of all your recommendations are more expensive – the 24 f1.4 and 35 f1.4 are excellent but very few people are going to spend that kind of money on those – they are basically pro lenses. And your longest focal length is 50mm on a crop camera and 85mm on full frame? That’s not going to cut it for most people.

Rich Humus

The Canon 70-200 f/4 (NON-I.S.) is a great value for WHAT IT DOES. As mentioned, for daylight sports or whatever, it’s perfect. No, I wouldn’t recommend it for indoor concerts. It can’t suck in the light like the 2.8 does. But it’s light, easy to use, and as mentioned in the column, is a good introduction to the 70-200 range. On an APS-C body it may not be quite as wide as you’d want, but again – If I’m shooting the kids playing soccer or whatever, it’s perfectly adequate and less than HALF the price of the other 70-200 models in Canon’s stable.

The thing about Canon’s EF-S lenses, and there are some very decent ones, is that they limit your upgrade path. I had an XT-i and then a 50D and now shoot a 6D – and I sold all my EF-S lenses early on, knowing I’d be FF sooner or later. The 10-22 and the 55-250 are good lenses (the 10-22 especially..) but when you consider that you can get Canon’s 17-40 L and 24-105 L IS both for under a grand each, and they are head and shoulders above similar EF-S glass, even for a crop body I’d say they are a good choice. They will be there when you upgrade.

Elmboughs

For me, my attitude was exactly the other way round. Going FF is a lot amount of money and often means bigger, heavier lenses, and I just don’t see it as worth it for the photography I do-I’d rather stick with the lenses and camera I have and spend the money on some travel to nice places.

Having said that, if you have a lot of FF wide-angle lenses already (maybe if you used to use film) and you want to do cheap nature/landscape photography on a budget, the first-generation 5D is now crazy cheap used for its image quality. It’s only 12 megapixels, but they’re very good megapixels, and it’s a camera built to last. I know some people who’ve gone into budget full-frame that way.

Zachary Reiss-Davis

I’m not sure why both 50mm and 40mm lenses are on this list over the Canon 28mm f1.8, assuming this article is dedicated at crop sensors. I strongly recommend the 28mm f1.8 over the 50mm 1.4 (they’re about the same price and build quality) on a crop body like the Canon T2i T3i T4i T5i 50d 60d etc.

tbarribeau

Primarily price. The 50mm f/1.8 is a well established, high quality and low cost lens, and we wanted to include the 50mm f/1.4 as a step up for people who want to spend a bit more. The 28mm f/1.4 is about $400 on its own, without the establishing support of a lower cost version!

And the 40mm is there as someone looking for a smaller option, since it’s a pancake and can significantly reduce the bulk of a camera setup. Comparing even the T5i with the 50mm f/1.8 vs the 40mm f/2.8 (and the 50s already pretty small!), and it’s pretty impressively slim

Great article. I just picked up the Pancake and it should be arriving shortly. I’m very excited about it. I’m just starting out myself so I bought the normal cheap photographers Canon T3i with the EFS 18-55mm lense.

This article is really great for anyone starting out and wondering what’s going on in the market for camera’s and lenses. Thanks a bunch!

Elmboughs

The problem with this list is that it’s a list of great lenses. But Canon have made lots of great lenses! They’ve been in this business for a long time. While a new lens can make you more creative, it makes a lot more sense to think about what kind of photography you want to do, and then decide what lenses you should buy. For a casual photographer, I’d say:
– Start with the kit 18-55 and 55-250mm lenses. Both are very decent for the price, and anything better is much bigger and bulkier. And the tele works OK as a portrait lens. Then:
– If you care about landscape, get the 10-22mm.
– If you want low-light capabilities, skip this list and get the 28mm f/1.8. It’s wider, faster and more versatile than:
– The 40mm. But it is small if that matters to you. Don’t get the 50mm – I used to own one, it’s an awkward, scrunched-up length on APS-C.
– If you like portraits, whatever you do don’t just buy a portrait lens – portraits are about lighting up your subject. Get a tiltable flash, like one from Canon’s 4xx series. If you then feel you want a portrait lens too, get either the 105mm (longer, does macro), or the 85mm f/1.8 (faster, wider, probably better indoors). Both are also good for indoor sports, concert and stage photography. Of course, if you do this a lot or:
– If you really want to photograph sports all day and night, start thinking about the 70-200mm lenses. But they’re big and expensive and heavy. Rent them unless you know you plan to use them a lot.

Yahya Nael

really good article and well made.. i think that ill buy the f/1.4. thanks in advance

capitalphotog

It depends on the kind of photography you’re interested in If you like taking portraits, the 50mm on a crop is like an 80mm on a FF. 28mm (44mm FF) seems a strange focal length to to me. I like the 17-55mm f/2.8 when I want to go wider, as I never need a super shallow depth of field for my wide shots

capitalphotog

If you’re just starting out, why not the Sigma 70-200mm f.2.8 rather than the Canon 70-200mm L f/4?

tbarribeau

We tried to stick with first party lenses whenever possible in this piece (though we’re thinking of going back and expanding it a little), but the price difference also really makes a difference. You’re looking at $700 for the Canon vs $1200 for the Sigma

I get that, but the Sigma is faster and has image stabilisation. In my case, I’d rather save a bit longer. And is there a stigma third part lenses anymore? Sigma’s art lenses are turning heads, and Tamron’s stabilised 24-70mm 2.8 is superb. I think the days of sticking to Canon are over…

The f/1.4 costs 3 times as much as the f/1.8 but isn't quite 3 times the lens, but it lets in more light, focuses faster, and is quieter so if you're serious about photography, it's probably worth the extra money.

This won't zoom as close as many longzoom point and shoots, but 200mm at the long end is nothing to scoff at, especially on a APS-C sensor (effectively 320mm). Plus it's part of Canon's storied L-series so you know it's good glass.

This lens is small, cheap, and sharp. A great combination that's all too rare among modern DSLR lenses. It's also got the new STM zoom motor which lets it take advantage of new hybrid AF systems in Canon's newer DSLRs.

The Wirecutter's Camera and Imaging Editor, Tim has been writing professionally about science and technology for more than a decade. His work has appeared on io9, PopPhoto, Reviewed.com, the Verge, Imaging Resource, and OMNI, among others. He's an avidly average photographer, travel addict, and occasionally dabbles in mad cheffery. He's lost count of the number of analog cameras he owns.